McDonalds workers due to strike for £10 an hour...

[ultralaser]

I would have a different view in that wages for other more responsible jobs should also be higher.

If it means bigger corporations having to take slimmer profit margins for a bit, then so be it. The way things are going is just not sustainable.

It's a nice thought, but the reality is that if you increase everyones salary, then the people paying those salaries increase the cost of their goods. So basically you achieve nothing but inflation.

 

[D.P.]

It's a nice thought, but the reality is that if you increase everyones salary, then the people paying those salaries increase the cost of their goods. So basically you achieve nothing but inflation.

Only if the cost of a product was 100% related to labour costs. Luckily int he real world this isn;t the case and thus increasing minimum wage doesn't increase inflation significiantly. Thi has been proven time and time again, whenever a cite/state.country increases minimum wage.

 

[grimm]

Only if the cost of a product was 100% related to labour costs. Luckily int he real world this isn;t the case and thus increasing minimum wage doesn't increase inflation significiantly. Thi has been proven time and time again, whenever a cite/state.country increases minimum wage.

Not always, but the product may increase in price as a result to some degree. Said company might also do a cost cutting exercise and decide that they only need 9 people in that department instead of 10 in order to reduce the impact of the wage increase on their bottom line.

 

[StriderX]

Only if the cost of a product was 100% related to labour costs. Luckily int he real world this isn;t the case and thus increasing minimum wage doesn't increase inflation significiantly. Thi has been proven time and time again, whenever a cite/state.country increases minimum wage.

Because it's mitigated with less jobs, which means less demand and thus more state expenditure regardless. It's a grossly stupid idea that should just be wholesale replaced with UBI, right now.

Just look at productivity and you'll have your answer for this.

 

[dowie]

Because it's mitigated with less jobs, which means less demand and thus more state expenditure regardless. It's a grossly stupid idea that should just be wholesale replaced with UBI, right now.

if we introduced UBI then I'd suspect a large number of people in London and the south east would be much worth off relative to the current benefits they receive (that is those who receive housing related benefits at least)

 

[StriderX]

if we introduced UBI then I'd suspect a large number of people in London and the south east would be much worth off relative to the current benefits they receive (that is those who receive housing related benefits at least)

Then those people can realise that London ISN'T theirs.

 

[dowie]

Then those people can realise that London ISN'T theirs.

fair enough, but you'll get cries of 'social cleansing' etc..

 

[Energize]

It's a nice thought, but the reality is that if you increase everyones salary, then the people paying those salaries increase the cost of their goods. So basically you achieve nothing but inflation.

A common misconception. Inflation results in salary increases but salary increases don't result in inflation.

 

[atpbx]

Nope not at all, no idea how you even got that from my post but ok.

Because it says it right in your post.

Let's not beat around the bush, you've given the reason "not getting the qualifications needed" as a reason for working there, that quite clearly says that in your opinion if you don't get decent qualifications that's why you have a McJob.

Own it if you say it, it's not a contest.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

So no qualifications means you are stuck flipping burgers?

Was that where this is going?

The point I think he made was that not everyone can just get up and leave with little consequence to their life if they want a fairly paid job. That even the lower end jobs should pay enough to allow someone to pay for a place to live and food to eat.

 

[Dis86]

The point I think he made was that not everyone can just get up and leave with little consequence to their life if they want a fairly paid job. That even the lower end jobs should pay enough to allow someone to pay for a place to live and food to eat.

Why though? Why should I be entitled to a house/flat/whatever for doing the most menial of tasks which require no intellect or skills at all? It literally doesn't add up.

"We need to pay Tim the apple picker £x per hour to be able to afford a house."

"OK, but that means we need to make apples cost £lol because we're making a loss on apples. That'll mean nobody buys them"

"Hmm...OK, how about we make houses cheaper?"

"OK, but now we can only afford to pay Dave the builder £tiny because we're making a loss on houses."

 

[Uther]

Low wages are one thing, but then you have to accept, and be happy with, the government using your taxes to prop up these peoples wages because the companies that employ them don't pay them enough to live on. There's another thread here about people struggling in London on 30k plus, how do you think people on min wage are surviving...
Can't have it all ways.

 

[Dis86]

Low wages are one thing, but then you have to accept, and be happy with, the government using your taxes to prop up these peoples wages because the companies that employ them don't pay them enough to live on. There's another thread here about people struggling in London on 30k plus, how do you think people on min wage are surviving...
Can't have it all ways.

And those people should receive help where it's needed. For example some of my parents are retired and do what i would call menial jobs for menial salaries purely for the social/antiboredom aspects and to provide a top up to their pensions. Do they suddenly deserve to be paid more? Do they heck. They also dont need government help to top up those wages.

Does my 16 year old nephew who works weekends at McDonald's need a rise to allow him to afford a house? Nope. Does he need government handouts? Nope.

 

[Nasher]

Low wages are one thing, but then you have to accept, and be happy with, the government using your taxes to prop up these peoples wages because the companies that employ them don't pay them enough to live on. There's another thread here about people struggling in London on 30k plus, how do you think people on min wage are surviving...
Can't have it all ways.

The low wage workers will dissapear from London over the next decade most likely. The ones there now are mostly those living with parents, or already owned property since before prices got silly. Once they go there will be a huge worker shortage and the greedy companies will only have themselves to blame. No one is going to commute to London for minimum wage.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Why though? Why should I be entitled to a house/flat/whatever for doing the most menial of tasks which require no intellect or skills at all? It literally doesn't add up.

"We need to pay Tim the apple picker £x per hour to be able to afford a house."

"OK, but that means we need to make apples cost £lol because we're making a loss on apples. That'll mean nobody buys them"

"Hmm...OK, how about we make houses cheaper?"

"OK, but now we can only afford to pay Dave the builder £tiny because we're making a loss on houses."

The costs are hardly so simple that its all reactive. The costs of rent/housing is massively manipulated by regulations, restrictions and government policy. For example. things like buy to let mortgages boomed the demand for houses and people who previously were considered not eligible for a mortgage on a house they didn't need (because they already had one), when they had no cash deposit and were earning a lower amount of income than what was considered viable for obtaining a first mortgage, these people could suddenly obtain a second house. Number of houses being built per year not adequate for the increasing population in the last few decades so it pushed up house prices (https://stevenclarkesblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/housing-completions-uk.jpg).

Government restrictions and regulation on markets are there to fine tune economies and make things fairer. If we let the market settle without restrictions or regulations and fair employment laws, quality of life for the average Joe would probably be worse off.

In your apple you would just pay the apple picker more, you would pay all low wage food picker/producers fairly. Yeah that pushes prices up but people still need to eat and so people will still buy food. pickers earn more, so they can afford more and its only higher earners that take a cost hit on their food, though a disproportionally small one since picking food is only the fraction of its cost in making.

I am not advocating an increase in age in one profession but all professions that dont pay an amount that is considered enough to live, especially in industries where companies exploit very low labour for very large margins, expecting the government to pick up the tag.

 

[=XDC=FluphyBunny]

The low wage workers will dissapear from London over the next decade most likely. The ones there now are mostly those living with parents, or already owned property since before prices got silly. Once they go there will be a huge worker shortage and the greedy companies will only have themselves to blame. No one is going to commute to London for minimum wage.

I have never understood how London functions even now given the disparity between minimum wage jobs and the cost of living in and around London. I think some tourist areas will have similar issues where house/flat prices will rise due to second homes/holiday lets while many of the jobs are retail, bar and restaurant work most of which will be minimum wage.

 

[dowie]

The low wage workers will dissapear from London over the next decade most likely. The ones there now are mostly those living with parents, or already owned property since before prices got silly. Once they go there will be a huge worker shortage and the greedy companies will only have themselves to blame. No one is going to commute to London for minimum wage.

Plenty of council houses in London and with prices rising not everyone can afford right to buy, unfortunately these council house leases can just be inherited by relatives instead of going back into the pool of available social housing for those who need it more.

 

[Ayahuasca]

Minimum wage subject came up on Rogan's podcast yesterday, still watching it myself so not sure what to make of his views just yet:

 

[TheGentry]

Because it says it right in your post.

Let's not beat around the bush, you've given the reason "not getting the qualifications needed" as a reason for working there, that quite clearly says that in your opinion if you don't get decent qualifications that's why you have a McJob.

Own it if you say it, it's not a contest.

I never said that's why you have a job at McDonald's I said there are many social factors please get your facts right when quoting ur just boring to read arguing of nothing. If you read what I was quoting about it's a guy saying that people choosing McDonald's as a career path, but yet you never referred to that.

 

[wildman]

if we introduced UBI then I'd suspect a large number of people in London and the south east would be much worth off relative to the current benefits they receive (that is those who receive housing related benefits at least)

Then those people can realise that London ISN'T theirs.

London might not be "theirs" but if they work there as cleaners / burger flippers / road sweepers etc what do want them to do, pay half their salary every month to commute in from some miserable **** hole like Harlow or Stevenage <enter another miserable **** hole new town built for chavs here> ? HOusing needs to be afordable in all areas for people of all jobs.